Moderated Book about Hitchens claims he almost converted

You'd have to be pretty gullible to believe this. Of course, targeting this book at religious folk is a smart marketing idea. It'll sell well.
 
angrysoba said:
You'd have to be pretty gullible to believe this. Of course, targeting this book at religious folk is a smart marketing idea. It'll sell well.
Click to expand...

A lot of times I don't think they even actually read such books, just keep them as something to point to.
 
Desert Fox said:
A lot of times I don't think they even actually read such books, just keep them as something to point to.
Click to expand...

I suspect you're correct. How many times has a christian apologist claimed Einstein was a christian? If they actually read his work, he said,
"the word of god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses...[religion] is childish superstition"
Click to expand...

The problems is, you see a statement like "God does not play dice with the universe" and one with a vested interest in a christian viewpoint ascribes far too much meaning to the use of the word "god". What he meant was, he didn't believe the universe was random. But you'd have to read his work to understand that.
 
It seems to me that Hitch was a very tolerant man. A very fair, neutral intellectual. It seems to me that Larry simply interpreted this as sympathy instead of honesty. For a guy that believes that a man rose from the dead, not a huge lapse of reason. What's the big deal? He already believes far more ridiculous things about reality than his asinine meanderings about what Hitch thought.
 
16.5 said:
Just a reminder, the book does not actually claim St chris of the Sauce Pot actually converted.

Of course, you don't have to read it tho....
Click to expand...

Deathbed confessions of sudden conversion to a faith have the same reliability as confessions under duress. Utterly regardless if a given faith would accept such an act as valid, it simply cannot be said under any normal interpretation that a last-minute, contradictory statement is justly indicative of a lifetime's intellectual stance on an issue.

So, moot, moot, very moot, even when granting there was a reason to suspect such a thing.
 
ComfySlippers said:
Just a reminder for you: You're the one who believes a badly written children's fairy tale is a history book.
Amen.
Click to expand...

Badly written, the single most referenced work in the history of literature is badly written.

'K.

Hey, at least people read it, unlike so called skeptics who brag about not doing so.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
Deathbed confessions of sudden conversion to a faith have the same reliability as confessions under duress. Utterly regardless if a given faith would accept such an act as valid, it simply cannot be said under any normal interpretation that a last-minute, contradictory statement is justly indicative of a lifetime's intellectual stance on an issue.

So, moot, moot, very moot, even when granting there was a reason to suspect such a thing.
Click to expand...

Did you mean to quote my post where I explained that the book does not claim he converted? Because your post makes no sense.
 
16.5 said:
Is that what the claim was or is that what the acolytes of st chris of the gin barrel who brag about NOT reading the book claim?
Click to expand...

Did you READ the article? That's what the book's author said. In the article. That he contributed to. So if it contradicts the book he's doubly an idiot.

Does it occur to you that you will never ever save a single person by being dismissive? Have you READ any CS Lewis? I recommend you start with The great divorce, and then the screwtape letters.

(Random words are in all caps because THE individual I responded TO seems to like THAT.)
 
16.5 said:
Is that what the claim was or is that what the acolytes of st chris of the gin barrel who brag about NOT reading the book claim?
Click to expand...

I am not going to read 212 pages of what is almost certainly drivel because even if it is true, it does not even matter.

Doesn't it interest you at all that this was written after Hitchens was dead?
 
Desert Fox said:
I am not going to read 212 pages of what is almost certainly drivel because even if it is true, it does not even matter.

Doesn't it interest you at all that this was written after Hitchens was dead?
Click to expand...

Yes, that DOES interest me! That is why i am going to "read" the book. Never occurred to me that on a skeptic site that people would be bragging about not reading a book.
 
16.5 said:
Yes, that DOES interest me! That is why i am going to "read" the book. Never occurred to me that on a skeptic site that people would be bragging about not reading a book.
Click to expand...

You either don't get or don't want to get it. . . . It is written after Hitchens has no ability to refute it.

If I write a book after you die that says you like to wear lacy pink underwear, there is no way you can refute it either.
 
Desert Fox said:
You either don't get or don't want to get it. . . . It is written after Hitchens has no ability to refute it.

If I write a book after you die that says you like to wear lacy pink underwear, there is no way you can refute it either.
Click to expand...

:confused:

The book appears not to claim that Chris converted.

Lets agree to read the book!
 
16.5 said:
:confused:

The book appears not to claim that Chris converted.

Lets agree to read the book!
Click to expand...

All right, let us go there. . . .I write a book that claims that you talked about wearing lace underwear but never did. If I publish it after your death, how can you refute it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom